Jack vs. Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?

[turtleback]

2 hours ago, Zeph said:

Someone find footage of every major Jack won to analyze the putts his competitors made…

Come on…this is silly. Chris didn’t play well enough to win, but one more putt was all he needed, or one missed by Tiger. And he played four under, while Tiger played one under. It was very close and even went to a playoff. Tiger wasn’t handed anything. Maybe Chris mishit a few putts, but every golfer do, Tiger included. It’s not like Chris wanted to lose.

On the one hand this point is the first actual new point in this thread for years.

OTOH, this point is fairly absurd.  

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, jxdama said:

I vote for  Jack

Well statistically that’s silly. But nostalgically …to each his own.

[boogielicious]

[turtleback]

10 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Well statistically that’s silly. But nostalgically …to each his own.

Hey, he's entitled to his opinion.  I've never objected to anyone saying they vote for Jack.  I only object when they start trying to justify their opinion with the kind of non-factual nonsense that is contained in the thousands of messages in this thread.  Or this latest nonsense of DiMarco somehow "gifting" the Masters to Tiger.  It's like saying Rocco 'gifted' the 2008 US Open to Tiger by driving it into a bunker on the 91st hole.

But I respect his right to his opinion, even though I think it is unsupported by the facts.  Not everyone has dived into the topic as deeply as we have in this thread, and it is indisputable that the 18>15 criterion is still being peddled whole-heartedly by much of the golf media.  So there are a lot of people whoo still reflect that.

[Vinsk]

39 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Hey, he's entitled to his opinion.  I've never objected to anyone saying they vote for Jack.  I only object when they start trying to justify their opinion with the kind of non-factual nonsense that is contained in the thousands of messages in this thread.  Or this latest nonsense of DiMarco somehow "gifting" the Masters to Tiger.  It's like saying Rocco 'gifted' the 2008 US Open to Tiger by driving it into a bunker on the 91st hole.

But I respect his right to his opinion, even though I think it is unsupported by the facts.  Not everyone has dived into the topic as deeply as we have in this thread, and it is indisputable that the 18>15 criterion is still being peddled whole-heartedly by much of the golf media.  So there are a lot of people whoo still reflect that.

Of course. And I gave him mine.😃

Edited May 15, 2021 by Vinsk

[onthehunt526]

On 5/8/2021 at 7:57 PM, Vinsk said:

Faldo is the supreme recipient of profound luck when it comes to The Masters. To be handed 2 Masters wins is quite amazing. 

You’re talking about ‘89 and ‘96 I hope.

[onthehunt526]

People don’t wanna remember that Tiger really only gave away one major... (He could’ve won at least 5 more majors... perhaps even more)... that debacle at Hazeltine as we like to call it... really was not just Sunday it started Saturday, he really played like shit on Saturday and Sunday. He handed the 2009 PGA to Y.E. Yang.

Jack, on the other hand did finish Second 19 Times in majors. Some of the second places were a little more, someone dominated, Jack kinda just played well, didn’t make the putts to win (1968 U.S. Open comes to mind, 1982 U.S. Open, ‘83 PGA). But there were a few that Jack let slip away and he’ll be the first one to tell you. ‘75 Open at Carnoustie finishes one shot out of the playoff because off an untimely 5 at 17. ‘72 Open at Muirfield, he’ll tell you he wanted to finish. 3, 4, 4 as he did in ‘66. He bogeyed 16 (his only bogey of the day) failed to birdie the 17th, and parred 18. He finished one stroke behind Trevino. 
 

To @Vinsk’s point on Faldo being handed 2 Masters and 1 Open Championship... I’ll do it  in Chronological order.

’87 Open: Faldo makes 18 pars on Sunday. To post 279. Azinger bogeyed 17 and 18 to lose by 1.

’89 Masters: Faldo played like absolute shit on Saturday... garbage 77.... He did in his defense in regulation play he did play very well shooting a 65. Hoch had a 2 1/2 foot putt for par on the 1st Hole of Sudden death. He missed it and made the comebacker. Faldo walked through the door Scott Hoch left open and made a 30 footer at the 2nd playoff hole to win the Masters.

’96 Masters: Faldo shot 67, Norman played like shit that simple to blow a 6 shot 54 hole lead...

Half of Faldo’s majors were handed to him.

[Esox]

All evidence wold indicate that Tiger has put it in many, many more holes than Jack.

 

But seriously, Tiger was much better at scrambling and making stunning recovery shots than Jack.

But Jack didn't seem to find trouble as often as Tiger.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Esox

[onthehunt526]

1 hour ago, Esox said:

All evidence wold indicate that Tiger has put it in many, many more holes than Jack.

 

But seriously, Tiger was much better at scrambling and making stunning recovery shots than Jack.

But Jack didn't seem to find trouble as often as Tiger.

Tiger’s driving could be more erratic than Jack’s. 
 

Driving: Jack (I think they were equal in distance relative to the equipment they were  playing, but Jack stayed out of the shit)

Approach (75-250 yards): Wash. Jack takes the longer end (mainly because of some amazing 1 and 2 iron shots). Tiger takes the shorter end.

Short Game: Tiger not close.

Putting: Wash. Both of them in pressure situations. 
 

Recovery: Tiger

Mental: That’s a wash.

Performance under pressure: Both

How much better than everyone else was Tiger in his prime vs Jack on his prime? Tiger set the bar so high when he was in his prime that most guys behind him weren’t even in the same time zone let alone, the same tour. Jack was pretty damn good but he wasn’t as dominant as Tiger and that’s where Tiger is so much greater than Jack and that’s what makes him the GOAT.

 

[Sandy Lie]

First off, is this the oldest topic in the forum? 15 Years, wow.

This discussion about the greatest of all time is mute.  All sports have the same point and counterpoints. Most Home-runs, best hitter in baseball, most Super Bowl Rings, on and on.

Comparing athletes from different eras are practically impossible. From changes ranging from physicality to equipment, travel, nutrition, playing conditions, shorter courses vs longer courses, stadiums indoor vs outdoor, astroturf, lowering the mounds, 3 point lines, instant replay and more.

Best of an “ERA” I could believe in that. Sustainability in a sport is a good measure, but not those that linger.  Having the most Majors?  Most Super Bowl Trophies? Individual sports, Team Sports?

Jack vs Tiger?  Take your pick.
 

[Billy Z]

Is there a definition of what makes one the greatest golfer? Is it how many majors one has won? How many total tournaments one has won? Or is it who would win most matches if the two played each other. Maybe it's the length of their career mixed with the quality of their successes? If Tiger and Jack went head to head in the primes of their careers, say 10 matches, I would probably pick Tiger to win more then Jack. jmo.

[turtleback]

10 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

Is there a definition of what makes one the greatest golfer? Is it how many majors one has won? How many total tournaments one has won? Or is it who would win most matches if the two played each other. Maybe it's the length of their career mixed with the quality of their successes? If Tiger and Jack went head to head in the primes of their careers, say 10 matches, I would probably pick Tiger to win more then Jack. jmo.

If only there was a nearly 7000 post thread exploring these and other related issues.😯😉

But to answer your question, no there is no definition.  Everyone decides for themselves.  Mine is dominance.  Tiger dominated golf for ten years to an extent and degree never before seen.  While being a significant factor for long enough to be significantly ahead of Jack in PGA victories. I was a huge Jack fan in my earlier years and still am, although his jockeying to get and try to hold the goat designation have disappointed me.

For most Jack supporters their definition is simply 18>15.

[Vinsk]

35 minutes ago, turtleback said:

I was a huge Jack fan in my earlier years and still am, although his jockeying to get and try to hold the goat designation have disappointed me.

For most Jack supporters their definition is simply 18>15.

Agree 100% with this.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Sandy Lie said:

This discussion about the greatest of all time is mute.

You say this in post #6922 in the topic…

[turtleback]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

You say this in post #6922 in the topic…

Plus, the word is moot, not mute.

[Pretzel]

23 hours ago, onthehunt526 said:

Driving: Jack (I think they were equal in distance relative to the equipment they were  playing, but Jack stayed out of the shit)

I have to wonder if this is particularly true though, simply because when Tiger burst onto the scene the new trend in course design and renovation was to "Tiger-proof" your golf course by making it longer, but more importantly by making it very narrow and penal specifically in the areas where longer hitters put their tee shots. Bunkers were added, the rough was grown out, fairways were pinched down to a narrower waist ~300 yards out from the teebox. Was Tiger truly less accurate than Jack, or is it partially because the courses were modified specifically to make things more narrow and difficult for golfers who hit the ball as far as Tiger?

I personally believe Jack was still a bit more consistent off the tee, with Tiger Woods off the tee being best compared to Arnold Palmer ("Hit it hard, go find it, and hit it hard again").  I think it's an interesting and important discussion though, because only one of these two golfers was so influential that virtually every important golf course around the world was modified specifically to be made harder for that one golfer. Nobody talked about "Jack-proofing" a golf course, he won but wasn't so much better than everyone else as to be specifically thought about when designing a new or revised golf course.

[turtleback]

I just watched the 2000 PGA Championship playoff where Bob May gifted the win to Tiger.

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Was Tiger truly less accurate than Jack, or is it partially because the courses were modified specifically to make things more narrow and difficult for golfers who hit the ball as far as Tiger?

I have no clue. Jack was known for his advantage off the tee. Tiger was hitting it 300 yards, with only John Daly in the area, but he was way more accurate than Daly. I feel like Tiger's driver issues came later on his career. 

2 hours ago, Pretzel said:

I personally believe Jack was still a bit more consistent off the tee, with Tiger Woods off the tee being best compared to Arnold Palmer ("Hit it hard, go find it, and hit it hard again"). 

I disagree. Tiger wasn't just a bomber off the tee. He would hit it hard, shape it, hit it easier. He had a full range of shots. He wasn't just hit it hard. 

2 hours ago, Pretzel said:

I think it's an interesting and important discussion though, because only one of these two golfers was so influential that virtually every important golf course around the world was modified specifically to be made harder for that one golfer.

I wonder how much courses actually went to Tiger-proof the course? Maybe this was overblown?